https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794259 Section 74 of the GST enactments was treated as validly invoked where the taxpayer did not fully respond to the scrutiny intimation and statutory notices, and the non-furnishing of information was applied as suppression of facts under Explanation 2. On that basis, the challenge to the demand orders failed on merits. However, because the orders had been passed ex parte, the writ petitions were remitted for fresh adjudication de novo, subject to filing a reply and depositing 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794259 Section 74 of the GST enactments was treated as validly invoked where the taxpayer did not fully respond to the scrutiny intimation and statutory notices, and the non-furnishing of information was applied as suppression of facts under Explanation 2. On that basis, the challenge to the demand orders failed on merits. However, because the orders had been passed ex parte, the writ petitions were remitted for fresh adjudication de novo, subject to filing a reply and depositing 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794259